I have yet to see, outside of a completely downed system due to DDOS, any instance where there was no orders for hashing and there must be a fall-back pool that nicehash uses for the excess hash in order to ensure that *everybody* gets paid the same rate for their hash. You should always have failover pools though.

Understand this, sure, you could probably track down where the fast money is currently at, if you sat at your monitor 24 hours a day constantly checking *every* new coin announcement, every sudden upswing in profitability from a particular coin or pool, etc. If that's how you want to mine then go for it. Some people can make a quick buck that way, most find the dump opportunity is gone before they get their profit.

Nicehash is all about taking the effort out of mining as far as my experience with it so far has been.

If the price per megahash goes below what you would be happy with then simply set the 'p=[x.xx]' parameter in the pool password at whatever x.xx price per gigahash you'd accept as the lowest rental rate. TBH, so far I've not seen many places where you'd get a better price, outside of direct rig rental services, which have their own headache-inducing customer service issues.

Another misunderstanding it would seem. You 'mine' at nicehash exactly as you would at wafflepool, with absolutely no additional involvement from your end as to where your hashing goes. You can join and disconnect at will, which is why it makes for such a great failover pool.

It is a 'hash rental' service, not a rig rental service.

I don't know whether to be amused or depressed by these sorts of statements. Name one investment opportunity that even comes close to returning your investment in such a short time. You do know that it is utterly absurd to complain that you have to wait a whole two or three months to earn your initial investment back? Because if you don't, you've got some *real* hard lessons awaiting you in life.

Ah yes, the "Why not just buy the equivalent in coin?" argument. Ok, let's say I buy 100 Bitcoin and I also buy 100 Bitcoin-worth of mining equipment at the same time. After three or four months, with careful management, I should be able to see that my miners have comfortably earnt that 100 Bitcoin back and are, albeit more slowly, earning extra Bitcoin on top of my initial investment amount, I have 100+ Bitcoin and growing.

As for my purchase of 100 Bitcoin? Well that's still exactly 100 Bitcoin.

Wherever the market moves it will still only ever be 100 Bitcoin.

Absolutely. If things don't work out, you can come back to this thread and laugh at me for making the right decision at the wrong time.

Care to put your money where your mouth is? We put a BTC each into escrow and if I don't make ROI in less than 90 days, you win.

How about another bet on this claim too? If, come 12th June, it isn't possible to earn more than .001 btc/mhs/day you'll collect. All I have to do is show you evidence that, on 12th June, an A2 rig I own earned me more than that rate for the day, yes?

I'm with the OP on this issue. Having found a solid vendor in China who can host these A2's at half the price being quoted by GAWminer, with the first month free, and being only asked for 60% payment now to buy each A2 90 and the rest in two weeks, it had to be done.

As a pre-order customer (investor?mug?) waiting on both Alpha-T and KnC, I'd have been a fool to sit around twiddling my thumbs waiting for their kit to be shipped when Innosilicon even beat Zeus to the finish line.

It is worth every Bitcoin getting these A2's solely for the experience at this point. I've pointed them at numerous tasks for hashing to see how they get on and, apart from the initial problem with the firmware needing to be updated, they are pretty solid now.

TBH I'm spending the next few weeks trying to figure out whether I need to go all-in early with rigs that perform a little less than advertised, but still perform well enough to aim for ROI before my other orders are even ready. Don't do your calculations based on Litecoin mining diff, do it based on the best multipools and hash/rig rental services that pay in BTC.

That's why the Litecoin diff isn't going through the roof right now, because most people who buy these A2's quickly realise the last place you should be using them is on LTC mining.

How about setting up a list of bad customers who can be blacklisted from renting your rig where, if three or more renters report the same user their bad reviews get removed from the list?

User 'jjj092353' rented one of my A2 ASICs and got higher than quoted performance out of it, but didn't bother to leave a positive review but, the next day, when he rented another one and the graph showed a short gap where the performance apparently dropped, he demanded a full refund for his 3 hour rental and left me a 0/10 'catastrophic' review for it, even though I know damn well the unit performed perfectly well during those three hours because I was monitoring it the whole time.

Petulant behaviour from renters is a real problem. It strikes me as likely that they want to jump all over a new coin and dump it for a profit which, when it doesn't work out for them, sees them hurling complaint and bad reviews at the rig owner.

Is there a way to place a hashrate monitor of stats from the miner side to prove to snarky renters that the rig performed perfectly well and that their 'catastrophic' review is unwarranted as any performance issue was clearly at wherever they had it pointed?

I tells ya' it's like dealing with stroppy five-year-olds at times.

At Betarigs the price can be whatever you want to make it, doesn't mean it'll get rented, or that you won't get asked for partial refund if your rig doesn't perform as advertised for the duration of the rental period.

You know what a smart move would be? Set up your rig for rental at Leaserig or Betarig and, in the meantime, have it pointed at Nicehash as pool2 so that it can make a steady income for you while you wait for it to be rented.

This assertion indicates a lack of understanding as to the difference between manual leasing services, such as Betarigs and Leaserig, whereby you assign your rig to be available at a price and wait for someone to choose to rent it.

Nicehash allows you to simply point your miners at their service, state a Bitcoinwallet payment address as the user name and then just let it run. You will earn a steady Bitcoin income at the stated rate all the while your miner is hashing to the nicehash pool.

Welp. right now happens to finally be right now.

I would like to point out that the hosting rates being quoted by Zeus for units to be shipped to GAWMiner (when they actually start shipping, of course) are extremely high. Terry has quoted $5 per megahash per month, which is a large chunk of change considering these scrypt units consume significantly less electricity than Bitcoin miners.

Pcfli has three units hosted for me at $225 each per month, which is less than half of what is being charged by Zeus and GAW.

Yeah, I have to say that, despite some technical problems initially, these bad-boys are working beautifully and pcfli's customer service on the hosting side is excellent.

So far, so very good.

For anybody who is interested, this device was supplied and is hosted by user pcfli https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=253683

*cough* Bollocks! *cough*

Dude, quoting flowery prose from people who live by way of magical thinking does not a reasonable assertion make.


*sigh* No he didn't, not really, and, even if he did, as you lot LOVE to claim, so feckin' what? 'Origin of Species' is based on reason and critical thinking, 'it must be designed by an intelligence', is the same wildly speculative crap that falls wayyyy outside of the reasoning process.

Here's a tip you really need to understand, ALL of your pro-woo Creationist 'science' is garbage, designed to satisfy what YOU are looking for so you can agree with it and assume it safely answers all the questions satisfactorily.

Learn about fallacious argument, your lots' 'research' data is full of it. Oh, and lies, it's full of lies too.

Besides, I already pulled apart 'appeal to authority' fallacy much earlier in this thread.

Objective scientific research doesn't need to spin its information to suit a predetermined wish about how reality might work. It just deals in the cold soul-less facts of the Universe.

Goodness me, the level of misunderstanding and outright misrepresentation being shown here is staggering.
'Spiritualists', first stop assuming that such a thing as a 'spirit' exists and then seeking to cherry-pick information to support your assumption.

We are a brain that functions as a filter, otherwise the sheer amount of data our senses receive would absolutely render us incapable of functioning. Our sense of 'self' is that filter. All information we currently have about the brain suggest this to be so.

'Intelligent Design' Creationists, no, no you may not keep pointing us in the direction of shonky science 'proof' that, likewise, serves to misrepresent data in order to work backwards to your intended aim of claiming your assertion as anything more than utterly baseless wild speculation.

What is it about theism that encourages so much dishonesty?

@Joint - Warmth, you've been told already is not definable outside of subjective personal sensory perspective. Otherwise it is simply a 'temperature' objectively measurable by technologies we create to do so.

The 'feeling' you get at one level of 'warmth' is not going to be the same 'feeling' I get, or someone else gets. Our brain, our body, creates sensory feedback from reactions from the radiation of heat across nerves which fire information to the brain and gets translated into 'warmth' as a rapid way for us to interpret the level of heat in order to what? Yes, in order to ensure we react to it quick enough not to get burnt! It allows us to respond without actually having to spend time thinking about it.

Without nerve signalling to the brain, in cases where there is numbness, people find themselves only knowing they are burning their skin when they smell it cooking.

@Wilikon - E=MC² In a nutshell, matter is energy slowed down. Matter and energy interact with different types of matter and energy to create, guess what, different matter and energy types!

Here, let me clarify something for you:

Scientific theory
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.


The 'Theory of Evolution' is not, "Hey, I have a theory about . . .", in the way that the fungelicals like to pretend it is in order to crowbar their 'Intelligent Design' Creationism 2.0 wildly speculative and arbitrary notion as being deserving of equal consideration.

A scientific theory describes an accepted fact whilst still always being open to correction in future were there to be new data that supplanted the old. Evolution is something that has been demonstrably accepted across a wide swathe of scientific fields by way of multitudes of repeated observations and experiments.

Appeal from ignorance fallacy.

Just because you cannot wrap your head around the numbers involved in regards to time and causal chains, does not justify the ' . . .therefore God'.

I dare you to try and float that stinking turd of a non-argument about junkyards, tornadoes and jumbo jets. I double dare you.

Evolution is erroneous replication in incremental steps. It is not "one day there was no eyeball then *poof* working eyeball!!!!1!111"

You keep on spouting about Positivistic Universe being the be all and end all of science, as if there is agreement on it, there is not. It is an ongoing discussion, which currently seems to have equal argument for both Positivism and Realism.

Yeah, but you know what? Hypothesising and reasoning, challenging existing understanding, are all welcome in the scientific method. As he said, it's ok to be wrong, in fact being demonstrably wrong actually adds to the knowledge of science.

Warmth is subjective because the instrument we use to measure it, us, is fecking unreliable and inconsistent. Temperature in degrees can be established objectively by way of removing our crappy subjective selves from the equation and developing a multitude of technologies to accurately establish the facts of temperature.

Correct. Nobody *knew* anything, They posited, they suspected, they 'believed' but they did not *know* until that knowledge could be removed from the subjective individual and observed, measured, tested and, importantly, replicated, by the objective process known as scientific methodology.

So we have the intelligence to create technologies that are capable of measuring the reality that is far beyond our biological limitations, but you are proposing what, exactly? That because there are aspects of the Universe that are yet to be fully understood . . .therefore God?

Or what? Therefore . . .something you want to arbitrarily claim is possible based solely on your imagination? Not exactly reasonable, is it?

Doesn't define the additional knowledge and sensory capabilities this 'being' might have, so the question is worthless. As it currently stands, everybody has a different perception of reality, namely, theirs.

Hell, no. Evolution now, in our case, is going to happen not from genetic mutation as erroneous gene replication, because we are pretty much all over that medically but, rather, from intellectually-driven advances in technology that will supplant the limitations of our wetware. The question is whether we, as sentient beings, will be able to survive the the process.

Stephen Hawking only recently addressed the inherent dangers of the coming 'AI' http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/stephen-hawking-transcendence-looks-at-the-implications-of-artificial-intelligence--but-are-we-taking-ai-seriously-enough-9313474.html

Personally, I struggle to see how we will. When AI can advance exponentially and near-instantaneously, without limitation, the 'artificial' aspect becomes irrelevant and a self-aware AI would likely reason that our limited capabilities make us irrelevant to it. But, on the positive side, dysfunctional systems are doomed to failure, therefore a balanced and functional AI super-being would probably be a lot more consistent and reasonable than we could ever hope to be.

Resistance actually is futile.

I, for one, welcome our new AI overlord! - Note the singular?

I said that numbers were an abstraction rooted in the literal in that they ultimately represent a tangible thing, even though they can still be used without needing to define 'thing'.

So, while the mathematician can run through no end of number-based processes that aren't simplistic counts of a quantity, the fact that the numbers themselves are defined as having a tangible meaning, denotes their abstraction as being from the literal. This is why math makes the most sense as being the language of the Universe because any sound or image can be used as the label that describes 'thing', 'thing and another thing', 'thing and another thing and another thing', otherwise known as 1,2,3.

This is my point about abstraction derived from the literal is a basis for reasoning, while abstraction derived solely from the figurative is not.

You cannot measure the temperature of the number 2, nor can you measure it's width, height or pretty much anything else about the number two, because it is an abstraction meant to represent *something*.

What does it represent? It represents a quantity of 'thing'. In that 1 represents a 'thing', 2 represents that 'thing' and another 'thing' and so on. We don't need to define that 'thing' unless we are actually using numbers for the simplistic task of establishing a quantity of [insert things here]. But, and this is the difference between abstraction related to math and that related to 'God', while numbers can be employed entirely without need to reference any particular 'thing', their root basis is as the abstract  representation of something literal.

Zero, is a representation of the absence of 'thing'.

'Thing' is literal without needing to be defined, therefore its use for mathematical abstraction purposes is objective and reasonable.


You cannot measure the temperature of 'God', nor can you measure it's width, height or pretty much anything else about the notion of 'God', because it is an abstraction meant to represent *something*.

What does it represent? It represents a figurative abstraction. It has no objectively definable qualities.

Its use in hypothesis renders such tainted and arbitrary. Its use in argument voids claims towards the process being one of reasoning.